Please read my post to the other responded. Why does population matter and not results? The US, as a fraction of the world economy, is one of the most least polluting nations in the world. Yes, per capita it pumps out alot of junk... but for that junk, you get FAR more benefit. There is no reason to include population if you aren't going to include economic contribution.
Those are meaningless numbers. Try dividing by population. The population of China is something like 5 times than of the US (I haven't bothered looking it up, but I think that's close) which puts China at around 1/10 of the emissions of the US, that's a fraction by my definition.
Ah yes, the classic per-capita-retort. Well, being a reformed student of statistics... allow me to go ahead and tell you why using "per-capita" pollution is also meaningless. First, and foremost, the US is not the #1 polluter per capita.... take at look at such irresponsible nations as Paraguay, Luxeombourg, Australia, and Canada if that is your metric... these obviously irresponsible polluters all put more junk into the air, per person, then the United States does.
In fact, over the years, the US has become more and more effecient at creating GDP with the same amount of pollution. The average US person, by far, is the most productive and effecient machine for turning energy into useful things with the minimum pollution. In that respect, the US is the most energy effecient country in the world.
The bottomline here is me and you could go back and forth all day using different metrics to divide up the numbers (read: the blame) however we want... the CO2 molecules in the air don't have labels. The US pumps out 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, has 32% of it's GDP, and has 5% of it's population. Depending on how you slice it, the US can look either really good, or really bad... but it's still a numbers blame-game.
Do you really think China and India need the help of the Kyoto Protocol? Production is *already* shifting to those countries. And yes their emissions are uncapped, but their emissions are a fraction of the U.S.'s emissions. When they become part of the problem then we can talk, but right now Europe and the U.S. are the problem.
Hello random internet guy. I do so like your idea about "talking" once China and India become a problem. Allow me to show you the power of 90 seconds and google.com.
Ah, ok, so, I'm not really sure what your definition of fraction is... but I'm going to go ahead and call 3650/4050, roughly 90%, which is the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by the EU vs China... a "problem". So, can we start talking yet?
The way things are going in America, what with the offshore prison camps, pervasive domestic surveillence, corporations trampling individual rights by suing their customers, and runaway executive power, maybe it should be stopped.
Not that the Chinese/Indian alternatives are necessarily better, but America is rapidly deteriorating.
This nonsense is never going to end. Do you realize this is the exact reason that public support isn't behind Kyoto here? It's because of people like you.... Because it is so easy to convince people that Kyoto isn't about climate.. it's about people who don't like America and want to punish it. When you bring up Guantanomo Bay in a discussion about Kyoto, every single rational person opposed to Kyoto is going to roll their eyes. Let's keep in mind those rational people are the ones that can be convinced, and make it happen... yet here I am.. having to listen to some guy ramble on about nebulous nonsense generalized into alamarmist and unrelated propaganda..
As to your other, weaker, point... congratulations.. no one is perfect. What does that prove? "Maybe" it should be stopped? And who fills that void... the next upcoming ideal nation? Then we can wait for the next centuries "utopia" to fail.. And we'll just keep destroying all the unperfect nations, one after another, until we finally get it right.
How is that good? It's a software patent. Software patents SUCK.
Talk about kneejerk.
So why are you (and those people saying essentially the same thing a few posts later who really ought to be modded Redundant) defending TiVo that much?
Maybe because their thought process is a little more in depth than OMG PATENTS BAD. MUST KILL.
but let's be clear, the fact that hurricanes now have many times more than ten times the energy, due to global warming, which created the very storm surge that blew out the dikes, had nothing to do with global warming.
I'm sorry, but if I take a cup and heat it up with ten times the energy I used before to cause a few bubbles, I'm not going to be surprised when it bubbles like roiling boil this time.
I'm sorry, but exactly whose rectum did you retrieve those numbers from? I've never seen any such study, ever. You are just making up nonsense. Over the last 100 years, the tempreture has gone up, on average, 1 degree celsius? That's what? 3%? Tops? Three percent is pretty far from 1000%.
I will entertain your incredibly simplisitic mental science experiment, for my own amusement. You need to realize that storms aren't about the AMOUNT of energy, they are about the redistribution of energy. It is much the same way a steam engine works. It has nothing to do with the temperature of the steam that produces the power... it has to do with the temperature differential.. the FLOW of heat is what produces the power.
Eh? I thought it was the environmentalists that were getting their grants pulled by industry and government folks... So the other guys are getting it too? So, should we not believe either of them then?
I think I got it! The whole crazy political debate and supressment thing is just a very clever strategy to cut funding from all science research. Ah that crafty Karl Rove!
From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away
Compeltely ignoring what he has to say and dismissing his claims as false based on your reason is, by definition, ad hominem, and maybe even worse, guilt-by-association. It has no place in a rational discussion. It's a useful tool to question the credibility before investing intellectual energy in learning about and discussing an issue... but you cannot, ever, say that the claims are false because of the messenger.. only that they are not worth discussing. Given the fact that this is a discussion forum, it stands to reason those who have chosen not to waste their intellectual energy aren't going to be reading this in the first place... so I am left with the conclusion that you are attempting to discredit his statements fallaciously.
The first major city lost to global warming is in the USA, but the USA government still doesn't believe in global warming. Sounds to me like the people who don't believe in it are still winning. Which city is next I wonder?
What a cesspool of nonsense. The first city lost to global warming? I'm pretty sure it was lost to a hurricane. Do you have proof that global warming causes hurricanes? Did you read the article where he goes on to describe the HUGE debate in the science community about whether global warming would produce STRONGER or WEAKER hurricanes? There is no consensus that hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming. You are literally making that up.
Next you go ont to say "Sounds to me like people who don't believe in it are still winning". Guess what, genius... he states.. repeatedly... the earth is WARMING. He "believes" in global warming as much as I believe in your ability to read (and your ability to choose not to). What he argues is the effect it will have on the climate, and it's actual cause.
Real scientists don't make dumb statements implying that global warming caused Katrina. That's idiot-babble. No real scientists that I know of declare that global warming doesn't exist. For the 927th time in the history of this topic on slashdot, I have to correct some ignoramus who is modded up to +5 because he doesn't understand the scientific debate between the existence and the cause of global warming. And lets not even pretend that science can hope to predict the effect of global warming in the long-term future.
It is people precisely like you that make it so easy for right-wing to keep parrading out the same strawman and striking them down. You are arguing with people who haven't existed in 20 years. Get your facts straight, read the articles, and then think for at least 45 seconds about what you want to say before parroting this same tired old tripe that is easily refuted. It's ridiculous.
As someone who did graduate work related to lasers, and has worked for the Air Force related projects.. allow me reiterate my original point: you are uninformed, and wrong. You repeating the same incorrect arguments, so I'm not going to refute them again. Choatic systems are determinisitic and highly sensitive to initial conditions. The path of a missile is _not_ chaotic. You, quite simply, are wrong.
Should Americans have a power source device with equivalent energy density for such weapon, they wouldn't be fighting desperately for remnants of oil today.
Nice random troll. Irrelevant, largely based on ignorance, and reasonably silly... so I give it a 5/10.
Considering latest Russian rockets have unpredictable trajectory, targeting would be quite an interesting math problem. Unpredictable as in chaotic, not as in "we don't know where they shoot".
Ah yes, the "meat" of your post. First of all, there is nothing chaotic about russian rocket technology. Perhaps you might want to look up what that word means, mathematically. Secondly, you might need to properly define what you mean by unpredictability, before trying to armchair-scientist your way through this pretty complicated topic with more then 2 minutes of thought. Do Russian rockets have a magical gremlin inside making them capable of violating Newton's Laws? The truth is ballisitic missiles paths are _very_ predictable, despite whatever minor perturbations they induce inflight. The reason that 100s of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers have been working on this for many years is precisely because of all these variables. There are artificial causes of "unpredictable" trajectory, too, which must also be taken into account. The "math problem" is interesting... precisely for this reason... if it wasn't, a high-school physics student could solve the problem.
The bottomline, mathematically, is these things have a very very very very high velocity, and a very very very low tolerance to accceleration. They move in accordance with Newton's Laws, and consequently, must induce forces, to accelerate, off their current path. That means they have a non-constant, time-varying acceleration. Determinging/approximating that function is the "math problem", from there it's pretty simple to predict it's path. Having good data on it's location, and a weapon that travels at the speed of light means, you don't need to predict very far into the future, correctly, to be effective.
Certainly a 747 is a much better target for identical weapon of an opponent than speedy rocket is... Optical properties of atmosphere are horrible, ask some pilot; so called "beam preconditioning" sounds pseudoscience bullshit to me.
Hahha. Instant dismissal of 50 years of laser technology.. because your gut says so. Hahah. Now _that_ is pseudoscience. You might want to like, try... reading... or something.. about how it works, why it works, and how it's proven over and over and over and over and over to be simple physics.
Possible iodine laser wavelengths will not be dificult to find, what if the misile surface will be polished mirror for that waves? Or maybe the opposite: vaporized metallic carbide of outer coat can serve as thermal isolation or even coolant..
Oh man, mirrors! I can't believe no one has ever thought of that before! You are a genius. Maybe you should try reading ANY THREAD EVER on military lasers on slashdot to see the 900 other arm-chair scientists that are completely clueless bring up the "obvious" countermeasure of mirrors, only to have it shot down instantly by 9000 people who have spent 10 minutes researching the topic.
Anyway, high energy weapons projects for upcoming age of energy scarcity is a really challenging strategy. Water pistols in desert, anyone?
Speaking of pseudoscience, nice predicition Nostradamus.
And similiar to the Republican-dominated Congress.
You realize the article was about how cockroaches get together, communicate effectively, and do what is good for the entire group, right? That means you either completely mistrolled for the slashdot groupthink, or you are the bravest Republican in the history of slashdot. Either way, I fear a karma-punishment in your future.
Based on your statement, the US responds to ANY stimuli with some type of war machine. I think the points I've made disprove your assumption and show you have a biased opinion of the USA. I'm sorry to hear that.
His sweeping generalization and obvious anti-American comment is +5 insightful, your counter-examples to his generalization is 0, Offtopic. Welcome to Slashdot. They should just go ahead and put in the +1, Anti-American modifier now.
Ah the magic of sensationalism.. substitute "on" with "via", and reread the article. See the way a yellow journalist can cause a ruckus with careful use of the English language?
Because you've been trolled by yellow journalism. The US isn't attacking the internet. He is using prepostional magic to feed anti-US sentiment. The US is preparing for a war via the internet... That's a big difference then "ON", which implies the internet itself is the target.
Is there anything that America doesn't "wage war" against? It's like a mentally retarded child who responds in the same way, regardless of stimulus.
Get rid of this flamebait nonsense. Jesus, what a pile of nonsense slashdot is degenerating into. He got trolled by some article, didn't even read it, made a ridiculous statement, and gets +5 insightful? Does he realize that some idiot writer made an article about waging war against the internet, when in fact the plan he is referencing is about waging war via the internet?
When was the last time America actually fought a war out of self-defense? Most reasonable people (i.e. not proponents of the "War on Terror") say...
The self-defense argument is so 1920s. Self-defense is not the only reason for war in this world anymore. [mockery] Any reasonable person (ie, one that agrees me), knows that. [/mockery]
[snip some tinfoil conspiracy theory]
All America's subsequent wars have unquestionably been wars of aggression
It's time to come to grips with the fact that your simplified neandrathal logic just doesn't cut it in today's world. WAR=BAD sounds great on paper... but it's simplistic and pretending it should be that simple just makes you out to be a simpleton. Nazi Germany taught the world a valuable lesson about what happens when you only wage war in "self-defense". Bosnia and Iraq 1990s are two classic examples of the type of "war of aggressions" that were attempts to stop Hitler-like sequels. If it's ok for you to sit back and "appease" waiting for your Pearl Harbor, then so be it... you are _NOT_ in the majority, and most would _NOT_ consider you, to use your word, reasonable.
A summary with a bit more information (and without horrible formatting errors), including a link to the actual document, can be found here. Apparently it's been declassified for a couple months now...but better to get this info out a little late then never I suppose.
This article and summary seems like a huge troll to me. It's carefully worded to be inflamatory, and appears to be, in large part, wrong. The US isn't preparing for war "on" the internet... as much as it's preparing for a war via the internet. The article goes on to use a bunch of careful prepositional games where I have to guess whether the US is actually thinking about attacking the internet... or considering how warfare will be conducted via the internet. It then goes on to quote a bunch of unnamed military guys saying things that I've never heard them say before...
Every plan I know of details a plan for electronic warfare using the internet.... yet here you have some terrible editorial trying to stir the spot, feeding into the slashdot groupthink and... stirring the pot. You already have people talking about the US "attacking" the internet. This is just shoddy journalism and bad editorializing to preach to a bunch of sheep. And the sheep cometh...
Don't even try. Trying to rationalize with the crazy left-wing slashbots who throw those rhetorical moltov cocktails into the fire is like spitting into the ocean. Just let it go. He'll get modded down eventually.. despite the fact some other lunatic modded him up.
It is your perspective that is wrong. Microsoft did a bad thing, they got caught (by the DOJ.) After that was over with, they were still up to no good. Jackson: Nothing has changed. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/229468_msft jackson22.html [nwsource.com] And that is why they are in front of the EU. Except, they are 19 now, and Jr got caught with his pants down! So he hits up Dad to bail him out. Why don't you grow up and open your eyes to reality. Microsoft hasn't changed. They don't just need a swat on the rear. They need to be jailed, because the teen is still acting like a five year old. And as comparing to family, I have a 19 year-old step son that acts just like Microsoft. Getting into trouble, asking his parents to bail him out. What an idiot.
You sound like a very calmed, reasoned, rational person. I can't imagine why your 19 y/o stepson acts the way he does.
Exactly. They are being treated fairly. They just claim that they aren't. Just their latest attempt at making the EU fall over like the US did. They hope that somewhere, someone will whisper in the right ears that after those accusations, the punishment should not be too stiff, because it would confirm the (baseless) accusations.
I really wasn't trying to get into the details of the case. I haven't followed it closely enough to make a judgement on the merits... I put that last comment in there specifically to gaurd against the slashbot zombies misinterpretting my post as a defense of microsoft. I'm not. I'm just saying that IF Microsoft is being treated unfairly, that is WRONG. The "It's ok to screw people... as long as we are screwing Microsoft" is terrible logic and incredibly rampant. Look at the replies I've gotten.
My main point is... an unfair trial isn't "ok" if you agree with who is being unfairly treated because you don't like them. That's a Slippery Slope(TM) and every freedom-orientated individual should be against it... but because this topic is about the M-word, we have an explosion of hatred and rah-rah cheering going on...
If, on the other hand, this was a story about some US detainee who wasn't being treated fairly by the system, I imagine the attitude of these people would have been slightly different. We should be striving for fairness in all our dealings... and accusations of unfair practices should be taken seriosuly on all sides. "It's ok to be unfair to Microsoft" is a terrible line of reasoning.. and the entire purpose of my post was to debunk it.
You make a very valid point criticizing my analogy... but what you've shown is that my analogy is somewhat faulty, but not my original point. Self-defense implies some kind of immediacy... I can't get punched in the head today on my walk home from work, and three weeks later find him, go to house, and stab him in the face.
So what you are saying is that it's ok to abuse a person or entitity and violate their rights as long as they have done bad things in the past? Righto. Got that.
Slashdot Mirror
Please read my post to the other responded. Why does population matter and not results? The US, as a fraction of the world economy, is one of the most least polluting nations in the world. Yes, per capita it pumps out alot of junk... but for that junk, you get FAR more benefit. There is no reason to include population if you aren't going to include economic contribution.
Those are meaningless numbers. Try dividing by population. The population of China is something like 5 times than of the US (I haven't bothered looking it up, but I think that's close) which puts China at around 1/10 of the emissions of the US, that's a fraction by my definition.
Ah yes, the classic per-capita-retort. Well, being a reformed student of statistics... allow me to go ahead and tell you why using "per-capita" pollution is also meaningless. First, and foremost, the US is not the #1 polluter per capita.... take at look at such irresponsible nations as Paraguay, Luxeombourg, Australia, and Canada if that is your metric... these obviously irresponsible polluters all put more junk into the air, per person, then the United States does.
More seriously, pollution can be viewed in economic terms. Per capita, yes, the United States pumps out alot more junk than the EU, China, and India.. by pretty sizable margins.. however, what do you "get" in return? Well... only 32% of the worlds GDP, for 25% of it's pollution. Given the contribution to the world economy, that makes the US one of the most effecient and least polluting nations in the world..
In fact, over the years, the US has become more and more effecient at creating GDP with the same amount of pollution. The average US person, by far, is the most productive and effecient machine for turning energy into useful things with the minimum pollution. In that respect, the US is the most energy effecient country in the world.
The bottomline here is me and you could go back and forth all day using different metrics to divide up the numbers (read: the blame) however we want... the CO2 molecules in the air don't have labels. The US pumps out 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, has 32% of it's GDP, and has 5% of it's population. Depending on how you slice it, the US can look either really good, or really bad... but it's still a numbers blame-game.
Do you really think China and India need the help of the Kyoto Protocol? Production is *already* shifting to those countries. And yes their emissions are uncapped, but their emissions are a fraction of the U.S.'s emissions. When they become part of the problem then we can talk, but right now Europe and the U.S. are the problem.
Hello random internet guy. I do so like your idea about "talking" once China and India become a problem. Allow me to show you the power of 90 seconds and google.com.
Greenhouse gas emission by country
US: 6747 Mtons
EU: 4050 Mtons
China: 3650 Mtons
India: 1228 Mtons
Ah, ok, so, I'm not really sure what your definition of fraction is... but I'm going to go ahead and call 3650/4050, roughly 90%, which is the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by the EU vs China... a "problem". So, can we start talking yet?
The way things are going in America, what with the offshore prison camps, pervasive domestic surveillence, corporations trampling individual rights by suing their customers, and runaway executive power, maybe it should be stopped.
Not that the Chinese/Indian alternatives are necessarily better, but America is rapidly deteriorating.
This nonsense is never going to end. Do you realize this is the exact reason that public support isn't behind Kyoto here? It's because of people like you.... Because it is so easy to convince people that Kyoto isn't about climate.. it's about people who don't like America and want to punish it. When you bring up Guantanomo Bay in a discussion about Kyoto, every single rational person opposed to Kyoto is going to roll their eyes. Let's keep in mind those rational people are the ones that can be convinced, and make it happen... yet here I am.. having to listen to some guy ramble on about nebulous nonsense generalized into alamarmist and unrelated propaganda..
As to your other, weaker, point... congratulations.. no one is perfect. What does that prove? "Maybe" it should be stopped? And who fills that void... the next upcoming ideal nation? Then we can wait for the next centuries "utopia" to fail.. And we'll just keep destroying all the unperfect nations, one after another, until we finally get it right.
How is that good? It's a software patent. Software patents SUCK.
Talk about kneejerk.
So why are you (and those people saying essentially the same thing a few posts later who really ought to be modded Redundant) defending TiVo that much?
Maybe because their thought process is a little more in depth than OMG PATENTS BAD. MUST KILL.
but let's be clear, the fact that hurricanes now have many times more than ten times the energy, due to global warming, which created the very storm surge that blew out the dikes, had nothing to do with global warming. I'm sorry, but if I take a cup and heat it up with ten times the energy I used before to cause a few bubbles, I'm not going to be surprised when it bubbles like roiling boil this time.
I'm sorry, but exactly whose rectum did you retrieve those numbers from? I've never seen any such study, ever. You are just making up nonsense. Over the last 100 years, the tempreture has gone up, on average, 1 degree celsius? That's what? 3%? Tops? Three percent is pretty far from 1000%.
I will entertain your incredibly simplisitic mental science experiment, for my own amusement. You need to realize that storms aren't about the AMOUNT of energy, they are about the redistribution of energy. It is much the same way a steam engine works. It has nothing to do with the temperature of the steam that produces the power... it has to do with the temperature differential.. the FLOW of heat is what produces the power.
Eh? I thought it was the environmentalists that were getting their grants pulled by industry and government folks... So the other guys are getting it too? So, should we not believe either of them then?
I think I got it! The whole crazy political debate and supressment thing is just a very clever strategy to cut funding from all science research. Ah that crafty Karl Rove!
From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away
Compeltely ignoring what he has to say and dismissing his claims as false based on your reason is, by definition, ad hominem, and maybe even worse, guilt-by-association. It has no place in a rational discussion. It's a useful tool to question the credibility before investing intellectual energy in learning about and discussing an issue... but you cannot, ever, say that the claims are false because of the messenger.. only that they are not worth discussing. Given the fact that this is a discussion forum, it stands to reason those who have chosen not to waste their intellectual energy aren't going to be reading this in the first place... so I am left with the conclusion that you are attempting to discredit his statements fallaciously.
The first major city lost to global warming is in the USA, but the USA government still doesn't believe in global warming. Sounds to me like the people who don't believe in it are still winning. Which city is next I wonder?
What a cesspool of nonsense. The first city lost to global warming? I'm pretty sure it was lost to a hurricane. Do you have proof that global warming causes hurricanes? Did you read the article where he goes on to describe the HUGE debate in the science community about whether global warming would produce STRONGER or WEAKER hurricanes? There is no consensus that hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming. You are literally making that up.
Next you go ont to say "Sounds to me like people who don't believe in it are still winning". Guess what, genius... he states.. repeatedly... the earth is WARMING. He "believes" in global warming as much as I believe in your ability to read (and your ability to choose not to). What he argues is the effect it will have on the climate, and it's actual cause.
Real scientists don't make dumb statements implying that global warming caused Katrina. That's idiot-babble. No real scientists that I know of declare that global warming doesn't exist. For the 927th time in the history of this topic on slashdot, I have to correct some ignoramus who is modded up to +5 because he doesn't understand the scientific debate between the existence and the cause of global warming. And lets not even pretend that science can hope to predict the effect of global warming in the long-term future.
It is people precisely like you that make it so easy for right-wing to keep parrading out the same strawman and striking them down. You are arguing with people who haven't existed in 20 years. Get your facts straight, read the articles, and then think for at least 45 seconds about what you want to say before parroting this same tired old tripe that is easily refuted. It's ridiculous.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
As someone who did graduate work related to lasers, and has worked for the Air Force related projects.. allow me reiterate my original point: you are uninformed, and wrong. You repeating the same incorrect arguments, so I'm not going to refute them again. Choatic systems are determinisitic and highly sensitive to initial conditions. The path of a missile is _not_ chaotic. You, quite simply, are wrong.
Heh. What an amusing response.
Should Americans have a power source device with equivalent energy density for such weapon, they wouldn't be fighting desperately for remnants of oil today.
Nice random troll. Irrelevant, largely based on ignorance, and reasonably silly... so I give it a 5/10.
Considering latest Russian rockets have unpredictable trajectory, targeting would be quite an interesting math problem. Unpredictable as in chaotic, not as in "we don't know where they shoot".
Ah yes, the "meat" of your post. First of all, there is nothing chaotic about russian rocket technology. Perhaps you might want to look up what that word means, mathematically. Secondly, you might need to properly define what you mean by unpredictability, before trying to armchair-scientist your way through this pretty complicated topic with more then 2 minutes of thought. Do Russian rockets have a magical gremlin inside making them capable of violating Newton's Laws? The truth is ballisitic missiles paths are _very_ predictable, despite whatever minor perturbations they induce inflight. The reason that 100s of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers have been working on this for many years is precisely because of all these variables. There are artificial causes of "unpredictable" trajectory, too, which must also be taken into account. The "math problem" is interesting... precisely for this reason... if it wasn't, a high-school physics student could solve the problem.
The bottomline, mathematically, is these things have a very very very very high velocity, and a very very very low tolerance to accceleration. They move in accordance with Newton's Laws, and consequently, must induce forces, to accelerate, off their current path. That means they have a non-constant, time-varying acceleration. Determinging/approximating that function is the "math problem", from there it's pretty simple to predict it's path. Having good data on it's location, and a weapon that travels at the speed of light means, you don't need to predict very far into the future, correctly, to be effective.
Certainly a 747 is a much better target for identical weapon of an opponent than speedy rocket is... Optical properties of atmosphere are horrible, ask some pilot; so called "beam preconditioning" sounds pseudoscience bullshit to me.
Hahha. Instant dismissal of 50 years of laser technology.. because your gut says so. Hahah. Now _that_ is pseudoscience. You might want to like, try... reading... or something.. about how it works, why it works, and how it's proven over and over and over and over and over to be simple physics.
Possible iodine laser wavelengths will not be dificult to find, what if the misile surface will be polished mirror for that waves? Or maybe the opposite: vaporized metallic carbide of outer coat can serve as thermal isolation or even coolant..
Oh man, mirrors! I can't believe no one has ever thought of that before! You are a genius. Maybe you should try reading ANY THREAD EVER on military lasers on slashdot to see the 900 other arm-chair scientists that are completely clueless bring up the "obvious" countermeasure of mirrors, only to have it shot down instantly by 9000 people who have spent 10 minutes researching the topic.
Anyway, high energy weapons projects for upcoming age of energy scarcity is a really challenging strategy. Water pistols in desert, anyone?
Speaking of pseudoscience, nice predicition Nostradamus.
And similiar to the Republican-dominated Congress.
You realize the article was about how cockroaches get together, communicate effectively, and do what is good for the entire group, right? That means you either completely mistrolled for the slashdot groupthink, or you are the bravest Republican in the history of slashdot. Either way, I fear a karma-punishment in your future.
I have no mod points to give, so you must settle for my verbal kudos on a point well made.
Based on your statement, the US responds to ANY stimuli with some type of war machine. I think the points I've made disprove your assumption and show you have a biased opinion of the USA. I'm sorry to hear that.
His sweeping generalization and obvious anti-American comment is +5 insightful, your counter-examples to his generalization is 0, Offtopic. Welcome to Slashdot. They should just go ahead and put in the +1, Anti-American modifier now.
Ah the magic of sensationalism.. substitute "on" with "via", and reread the article. See the way a yellow journalist can cause a ruckus with careful use of the English language?
Because you've been trolled by yellow journalism. The US isn't attacking the internet. He is using prepostional magic to feed anti-US sentiment. The US is preparing for a war via the internet... That's a big difference then "ON", which implies the internet itself is the target.
Is there anything that America doesn't "wage war" against? It's like a mentally retarded child who responds in the same way, regardless of stimulus.
Get rid of this flamebait nonsense. Jesus, what a pile of nonsense slashdot is degenerating into. He got trolled by some article, didn't even read it, made a ridiculous statement, and gets +5 insightful? Does he realize that some idiot writer made an article about waging war against the internet, when in fact the plan he is referencing is about waging war via the internet?
And he is insightful... what a cesspool.
When was the last time America actually fought a war out of self-defense? Most reasonable people (i.e. not proponents of the "War on Terror") say...
The self-defense argument is so 1920s. Self-defense is not the only reason for war in this world anymore. [mockery] Any reasonable person (ie, one that agrees me), knows that. [/mockery]
[snip some tinfoil conspiracy theory]
All America's subsequent wars have unquestionably been wars of aggression
It's time to come to grips with the fact that your simplified neandrathal logic just doesn't cut it in today's world. WAR=BAD sounds great on paper... but it's simplistic and pretending it should be that simple just makes you out to be a simpleton. Nazi Germany taught the world a valuable lesson about what happens when you only wage war in "self-defense". Bosnia and Iraq 1990s are two classic examples of the type of "war of aggressions" that were attempts to stop Hitler-like sequels. If it's ok for you to sit back and "appease" waiting for your Pearl Harbor, then so be it... you are _NOT_ in the majority, and most would _NOT_ consider you, to use your word, reasonable.
A summary with a bit more information (and without horrible formatting errors), including a link to the actual document, can be found here. Apparently it's been declassified for a couple months now...but better to get this info out a little late then never I suppose.
This article and summary seems like a huge troll to me. It's carefully worded to be inflamatory, and appears to be, in large part, wrong. The US isn't preparing for war "on" the internet... as much as it's preparing for a war via the internet. The article goes on to use a bunch of careful prepositional games where I have to guess whether the US is actually thinking about attacking the internet... or considering how warfare will be conducted via the internet. It then goes on to quote a bunch of unnamed military guys saying things that I've never heard them say before...
Every plan I know of details a plan for electronic warfare using the internet.... yet here you have some terrible editorial trying to stir the spot, feeding into the slashdot groupthink and... stirring the pot. You already have people talking about the US "attacking" the internet. This is just shoddy journalism and bad editorializing to preach to a bunch of sheep. And the sheep cometh...
Don't even try. Trying to rationalize with the crazy left-wing slashbots who throw those rhetorical moltov cocktails into the fire is like spitting into the ocean. Just let it go. He'll get modded down eventually.. despite the fact some other lunatic modded him up.
It is your perspective that is wrong. Microsoft did a bad thing, they got caught (by the DOJ.) After that was over with, they were still up to no good. Jackson: Nothing has changed. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/229468_msft jackson22.html [nwsource.com] And that is why they are in front of the EU. Except, they are 19 now, and Jr got caught with his pants down! So he hits up Dad to bail him out. Why don't you grow up and open your eyes to reality. Microsoft hasn't changed. They don't just need a swat on the rear. They need to be jailed, because the teen is still acting like a five year old. And as comparing to family, I have a 19 year-old step son that acts just like Microsoft. Getting into trouble, asking his parents to bail him out. What an idiot.
You sound like a very calmed, reasoned, rational person. I can't imagine why your 19 y/o stepson acts the way he does.
That's not self-defense, that's revenge.
Which is exactly what the original poster wanted. Revenge. I didn't use the term "self-defense", the GP did.
Exactly. They are being treated fairly. They just claim that they aren't. Just their latest attempt at making the EU fall over like the US did. They hope that somewhere, someone will whisper in the right ears that after those accusations, the punishment should not be too stiff, because it would confirm the (baseless) accusations.
I really wasn't trying to get into the details of the case. I haven't followed it closely enough to make a judgement on the merits... I put that last comment in there specifically to gaurd against the slashbot zombies misinterpretting my post as a defense of microsoft. I'm not. I'm just saying that IF Microsoft is being treated unfairly, that is WRONG. The "It's ok to screw people... as long as we are screwing Microsoft" is terrible logic and incredibly rampant. Look at the replies I've gotten.
My main point is... an unfair trial isn't "ok" if you agree with who is being unfairly treated because you don't like them. That's a Slippery Slope(TM) and every freedom-orientated individual should be against it... but because this topic is about the M-word, we have an explosion of hatred and rah-rah cheering going on...
If, on the other hand, this was a story about some US detainee who wasn't being treated fairly by the system, I imagine the attitude of these people would have been slightly different. We should be striving for fairness in all our dealings... and accusations of unfair practices should be taken seriosuly on all sides. "It's ok to be unfair to Microsoft" is a terrible line of reasoning.. and the entire purpose of my post was to debunk it.
You make a very valid point criticizing my analogy... but what you've shown is that my analogy is somewhat faulty, but not my original point. Self-defense implies some kind of immediacy... I can't get punched in the head today on my walk home from work, and three weeks later find him, go to house, and stab him in the face.
So what you are saying is that it's ok to abuse a person or entitity and violate their rights as long as they have done bad things in the past? Righto. Got that.